How to Destroy the Global Economy

    World leaders seem determined to destroy the global economy via their idiocy.  Ever helpful, the Village Elliot will elucidate for our leaders some simple steps that are likely to bring the world to the brink of destruction. 
     Actually, the global economy can probably be brought down by the United States (the number one economic superpower in the world), and China (the number two economic superpower).  
     In some ways the economies are built upon opposite principles.  China's amazing economic growth for the past 30 years has been fueled by an export-based economy, rolling up government surpluses (at least until recently) and discouraging consumption.  They few economic success in terms of their production.  Through a variety of laws and political maneuvers, their economy is export-friendly and consumer-unfriendly.  Hence, according to Wikipedia, China is by far the number one producer of commodities such as steel (8 times the US), aluminum (10 times the US), coal (3.5 times the US),  cement, (30 times the US) and many many others. The US produces more natural gas and oil, but otherwise we are nowhere near China.  Their manufacturing technology is also by far better than the US. China produces twice as many cars.  The US no longer even tries to produce its own TV's and VCRs and let's not even talk about cheap-o children's toys.   Overall, the Chinese Industrial Output was valued at about 4.4 trillion dollars versus 3.4 trillion for the US.  

 China produces a bit of steel---eight times the output of the US, which used to be number one in the world.

    The US, on the other hand, bases its economy based on comsumption, not production.  Hence we out-consume the Chinese by two to one even though China out-produces our industrial output. Figure that one out, please.    The US economy is partially financed by its incredible buying power, and strong banking (at least until recently) such that our politicians are gladly sponsoring some 1.5 trillion dollars of national debt per year, and an annual trade deficit of some 500 billion dollars.  Oh some of the congress may pretend to be upset at the deficit, but as long as the standard of living is maintained among likely voters, they have proven that they are willing to tolerate massive debt.  

    The problem is that when things go sour, the politicians try to fix things by doing what they have always done.  In China, there are now warehouses that are completely full of merchandise that they can't sell because overseas demand is completely saturated.  I mean, how many Happy Meals can they expect American kids to eat?   The average Chinese worker works 60 hours a week but doesn't make enough money be able to afford to buy the products that they make.    The solution?  Lower the price and export even more!!

   In the US we have high unemployment and stagnant growth, not to mention an inconceivably large deficit.  It would only make sense if we could modify our system to favor hiring the people who are now unemployed so that they could make some of the products that are currently imported.  However, our politicians simply can't imagine  that.  Our politician's solution?  Borrow more money and import even more to maintain the average standard of living.  If we have additional unemployment, it doesn't matter as long as purchasing power among the employed goes up to compensate.  

    What would happen if these politically imposed economic trends continue?  China will produce more and more stuff at a lower and lower price while it's people all suffer in poverty.  In the US, rich people will have warehouses full of possessions imported from China, while the rest of the American people are unemployed.   Likely this is not going to actually happen however, because at some point the people will wake up and toss these idealogues out of office.

  What's really going on here is that politicians are too rigid in their thinking.  Any economist can tell you that you need different strategies to fit a changing situation.  When the economy is bad, you need tax cuts and increased government spending.  Conversely when the economy is growing you need to increase taxation and cut back on spending.  This is in fact what happened in the Clinton era, but was reversed by Bushanomics in which we cut taxes and increased spending with a growing economy.  Not smart. 


   This whole thing would work if China would find policies that would allow its workers to be paid enough to buy more of the products that are produced, and export less.  On the other hand, the US needs to employ its workers, and one way to do that is to decrease imports and manufacture more products domestically.  That results in more hiring and more jobs and less borrowing.  

   In the case of the US, this is unpalatable, however.  We really don't care that much about the unemployed, and we certainly don't want jobs for involving commodities like energy, or the basic building blocks of economic growth including  iron, steel, cement, non-ferrous metals, chemicals, etc.  Heavy industry is considered environmentally icky, and if we hire a bunch of workers, they just unionize anyway.  So politicians are not comfortable with heavy industry.     Hence our politicians are not adverse to destroying jobs in these fields, and allowing them to go overseas..   Better we should create a new economy based on Americans pushing paper around,  and allow China to produce products and sell them to us at ever lower rates. 

America does not really care about workers in heavy industry, as terrible as that sounds.   Give American politicians the choice between cheap stuff from China versus low unemployment, and they'll take the stuff, thank you very much. 

Bipartisan Dysfunction in the Middle East

     Although the major parties disagree on a number of issues, there seems to be widespread agreement on the policy of intervention in the Middle East.  In particular, both parties have embraced the George W. Bush doctrine of Regime Change, in which America is justified in taking military or other action in the Middle East if governments are immoral or overly oppressive.  This was invoked in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan after failing to find Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).  By providing these countries with constitutions based on the American version, the idea is that these countries will become friendly to the United States and the West.  

     Where do we get such ideas?  I've always thought that American oilmen like Bush and Cheney were overly impressed with their counterparts in the Middle East.  Namely, Middle Eastern countries are places where oil guys go to make millions of dollars, while also being wined and dined, complete with trips to harems and all kinds of wonderful perks.   But this kind of lifestyle is not representative of the country as a whole.  Life in a dictatorship or monarch is terrible for less fortunate subjects.  Average people hate their government and the rich people at the top.  

     This discontent does not mean, however, that they are pro-US or pro Israel just because they hate their own government.  This lesson was learned all too painfully in Iraq, where Saddam's ouster and execution did not lead to solving the long-term discord between Shi'ites and Sunnis.  Just imagine Ron Paul trying to live with Jane Fonda and you can get an idea of the difficulty. 

   Similarly, US politicians would love for the enemy to be defeated in Afghanistan, so that we could lovingly rebuild the country (at much cost to ourselves) and thereby provide a better life for the inhabitants.  Unfortunately, it seems that many Afghanistanis just do not think in those terms.  They have been fighting in those regions for centuries and they don't seem inclined to stop just because it would be convenient for American politicians to do so.  They are not following the script, and for that reason we are continuing the fight in Afghanistan even though bin Ladin is dead.  No one knows what will happen to signal to us that the war is over and that it is time to come home.  Both US major parties are determined to continue to fight for at least a while longer, with Republicans hoping that the war will continue even longer than the Democrats want.  

    Nevertheless, the Obama Administration has embraced the so-called Arab Spring movement(s) which resulted in the outster of Mubarak in Egypt, and more recently Gaddafi in Libya.  In the case of Libya, the United States and NATO provided military support for Gaddafi's overthrow.  At the same time, President Obama has called for the ouster of President Assad in Syria.  The hope is that these actions will lead to stable, progressive governments in those countreis.   

    But in Egypt, this has given rise to the Muslim Brotherhood, a fundamentalist Islamist organization.  Is this likely to lead to a pluralistic government friendlier to the West than the Mubarak regime?  I doubt it. 

   In Libya, for some reason Gaddafi became intolerable to the US, and we had to send the military there to provide air cover for the revolution.  Why is this?   Back in the day, President Reagan had similar problems with Gaddafi.  Although Reagan had the reputation as a warmonger compared to Obama's as a peacenik, the fact is that Reagan never found it necessary to overthrow Gaddafi, whereas Obama found the temptation to be irresistable.  Reagan did blow up Gaddafi's palace one time in order to get his attention.  But Reagan treated Gaddafi like a juvenile delinquent, and he was the Principal.  Throughout that time, Reagan and the US never had any illusion that Libya was a friend of the US, although we did buy their oil. 

 Reagan well undestood Gaddafi was a rouge dictator, and that the country was being misled by radical Islam, but did not feel that the situation would be improved by the US trying to install a new goverment there.  


    The available evidence shows that factions within Libya continue to hate their government.  After all, they have just completed a Civil War.  In America, we are still not over our Civil War after 150 years.  It may take a similar length of time in Libya to recover.  But they hate the US even more.    We are not just a foreign country.  We represent infidelism, or the opposition to the faithful submission to Islam.   Until they evolve away from those beliefs, nobody is going to be our pal in that world.  Particularly if we are so stupid that we think that we can back one faction in a Civil War and then have everyone like us when we are done.  

 

President Obama and Secretary Clinton have embraced the Bush doctrine of regime change.   (AP Photo/Jim Watson, Pool)

   Recent protests, triggered by an anti-Muhammad movie, show just how deep anti-US sentiment really is.  We should not be confused by the assassination of our diplomats in Libya, however.  That was an act of terrorism by a small group of people, and the entire population does not bear respsonsibility for that action.  Both actions may be very anti-US, but the vast majority of people involved in protests did not in fact willfully plot to kill the ambassador.  But the broader expression of anti-US sentiment is prevalent within the Middle East and indicates that the vast majority of the people are in fact against us.  President Obama and Secretary Clinton are quite naive if they expect anything resembling gratitude.  After the assassination, Clinton found herself asking, "“How can this happen in a country we help liberate, in a city (Benghazi) we helped save from destruction?”  Clinton is certainly correct in pointing out that the assasination of diplomats is the action of a few people, and that the vast majority of persons involved in protests against the US were not directly involved in conspiring.  On the other hand, a better question, is whether the anti-US hatred has changed in Libya or elsewhere because of our actions, and the available evidence is that it has not.  That should be obivous to Secretary Clinton and the Administration, but it seems not to be.   By interfering in internal politics in Libya, no matter how well intentioned, we probably can expect to earn fear, mistrust and hatred.  We have chosen to disrespect the principle of National Sovereignty in which foreign powers do not interfere in the internal politics of other nations.  Well, that principle has been thrown overboard.  Welcome to the new millenium, in which the United States expects to support groups aspiriing to rule in the Middle East, even to the point of sending air support and bombers to support the groups of our choice. 
  

    The Village Elliot questions whether the US is realistic to expect popular support in the countries in which it works to overthrow the government, whether by moral support (Egypt, Syria) or economic and military intervention and bombings (Libya, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran).  And how about the calls in this election season to take military action against Syria and Iran?

     My favorite is Governor Rick Perry from Texas who during the Republican presidential debates, advocated invading Iraq yet again.  

     Yee haw!  Let's invade Iraq again!

      However, both the far right Libertarians and the far left Greens favor a policy of non-intervention.

 Jill Stein of the Green Party.

  Jill Stein is the Green Party candidate.  She says:  " We're going to see it's not over in Libya . You don't solve problems, you don't promote international stability and democracy by bringing in the army and the bombs. That does not create national stability. The humanitarian concerns were legitimate but those humanitarian aims were really cast aside very early. After NATO entered the fray it quickly morphed from protecting civilians to regime change. There was no legitimate international justification for that."   

 Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. 

   Gary Johnson, Liberatarian presidential candidate, puts it thusly:  "In one corner, we have the U.S. apologists warning that -- after the murders in Libya and the attack on our embassy in Cairo -- we must be careful not to say or do anything that might hurt someone's feelings. In the other corner, we have the chest-thumpers demanding that we find somebody to shoot -- and shoot them.

     I have a better idea: Stop trying to manipulate and manage history on the other side of the globe and then being shocked when things don't turn out the way we wanted. As far as what we do right now in response to the tragic events of this week, it's actually pretty simple. Get our folks out of places they don't need to be -- and out of harm's way -- and cut off every dime of U.S. tax dollars we are sending to clearly ungrateful regimes."


   In the opinion of the Village Elliot, the so-called extremists are--in this case--making more sense than the supposedly centrist Democrats and Republicans.  I want America to quit trying to be everyone's friend in the Middle East.  Be willing to deal with an adversay as Reagan did.  Buy their oil if it's for sale, but do so without deciding to take over their country and spend billions "rehabilitating" them.  What we are doing in Libya and other parts of the unstable Middle East is nonsense and we need to stop it.

Cycling is Corrupt and Hypocritical

 

     Pardon me for being cynical, but the Lance Armstrong story can not possibly be so simple.  Organized cycling would like you and me to believe that there was just one bad guy in the sport, namely Lance Armstrong, and now that we have proof that he used performance enhancing drugs, the rightful winners will be recognized.

     The fact of the matter is, however, that despite hundreds if not thousands of tests, there was no test result indicating that he used PED.  The same with Marion Jones, the jailed  olympic sprinter.  She never failed a drug test, but instead was convicted by testimony.  The conclusion is obvious:  the athletes know how to defeat the test.  Evidently  they have masking agents or some other way to completely defeat these tests.  THE TESTS DO NOT WORK.   

    People who get caught do something stupid, like forgetting to use the stuff that removes traces from urine.  The evidence says that if you are careful, you can enjoy at least a decade with frequent testing and not get caught.  

    Since that is true, it is very hard to believe that the second place finisher is any more clean than Lance Amrstrong.  Or the third place finisher, or the fourth or fifth.  Why not take PEDs, if the chances of getting caught are very very small?

    Do you believe that ten of Lance Armstrong's teammates decided to turn him simply because they are brave and honest?  No, it makes more sense to believe that they were threatened with going to jail if they didn't out him, because THEY WERE DOING IT TOO.  

    However, organized cycling does not want to admit that it is 100% corrupt.  Instead, they are trying to promote the fiction that there was only one person  of significance who ever cheated with performance enhancing drugs, namely Lance Armstrong, and the rest are all innocent and play by the rules.  

    I'm inclined to believe that virtually all of the top 1000 cyclists, and probably most of the high school kids who raced, used PEDs of one form or another.  Why wouldn't they use them, if there is a way to avoid detection, and you can't win without doing it because everyone else is?

   That is the reason why they are going on this witch hunt.  They would like to blame the entire doping scandal on Lance Armstrong, rather than admitting that all of the athletes are doing the same stuff.   Well, the whole thing is disgusting and a farce.  If you're going to throw the book at Lance Armstrong, fine.  Let him go to jail.  But let's also put the next top 1000 cyclists in jail because they did they same stuff.  And let's put the officials in charge of cycling in jail for a much longer time because they are willfully lying about the extent of the problem and in effect protecting the huge number of people who dope in order to blame the whole scandal on one person.  

Positive Cleveland Browns Analysis!

    Some of my fellow Browns fans say I have been too harsh on the Browns.  That is not true.  I do think that the team has been at a disadvantage because of financial problems in the ownership, and now that they have a new owner, things are going to get better.  For 2012, they are definitely in the top 5 of football teams in Ohio, right behind the Bengals, Ohio State Buckeyes, UC Bearcats and Miami Redhawks.  

   Some of you object to my prediction that the Browns will draft a quarterback in the first round next year in order to replace the aging Brandon Weeden, who will be stuck as the number two quarterback, while Seneca Wallace finishes the year as the number one quarterback.

   Well, we seem on course for that to happen, as we now understand the Browns strategy of drafting offensive position players this year in order to pump up the value of the franchise and prepare it for sale.  When they have to play games, however, it will become all too apparent the Browns just don't have enough talent.  

  

   Nevertheless, I've decided to be a good sport and issue some story lines to make my faithful readers (and there are probably about ten of you out there) happy.  Here we go:

   Number One:  The Browns can easily afford to give up a 4th, 5th and 7th round pick to move up one spot in the first round for Trent Richardson, and they won't miss a number 2 in 2013 for a  wide recieiver with a drug history, because the Browns are so deep that only future Hall of Famers have a chance to make their roster.  

This Cleveland Browns fan is literally crying with joy at the news that the Browns were able to trade four draft picks for Trent Richardson.

   Number Two:  AFC Central Quarterbacks Roethlisberger, Flacco and Dalton  have combined for 21 playoff games, including 6 AFC Championship Games and 3 Super Bowls.  But we think that being a minor league baseball pitcher like Brandon Weeden was actually better preparation!

   Number Three:  After the Browns' Peyton Hillis totalled 1654 yards from scrimmage in 2010, we think the Browns are vastly improved by getting rid of him!

A jubilant Browns fan celebrates the departure of Peyton Hillis.

   Number Four:  After finishing 4-12, the Browns were smart not to sign any free agents, because their roster is just LOADED with TALENT!

   Number Five:  The Browns rebuilding program is going so well, it is not necessary to add payroll.  Spending way under the salary cap is the logical move for a team in this position!

  Number Six:  The Browns have an excellent training program, and losing two regulars during training should not be a concern, especially since their spectacular depth will cover the loss of Phil Taylor and Chris Gocong.  

   A Cleveland Browns fan, intimidating James Harrison of the Steelers!  Take that!

     Number 7:  Goldman Sachs will place bets on the Browns with Las Vegas rather than investing in their usual stocks and bonds, because it is so certain that the Browns will win this year. 

     Number 8:  The Browns are developing a more sophisticated offense than any other team in the league, thanks to he ingenious Brad Childress, who was Brett Favre's favorite coach.   

 Brad Childress explains how his new offensive schemes are certain to eclipse his achievements with Brett Favre and the Vikings.  

     Number 9:  Then there's Pat Shurmur, who helped the St Louis Rams score the 26th most points in the NFL in 2010 as their offensive coordinator.  With this kind of brilliant record, he is just the guy to lead the Browns on their Super Bowl charge in 2012!    

 

Browns fans are giddy, anticipating a return to the playoffs in 2012.

     Number 10:  The Browns biggest advantage is stability, with Mike Holmgren, Tom Heckert and Pat Shurmur all expected to stay for long careers in Cleveland.  
 ***
    So there you have it, faithful fans.  Ten positive story lines about the Cleveland Browns.  There is no reason to be anything but optimistic for the upcoming season.  
   

Born to Run

     I think Born to Run (the Emmylou Harris version, not be be confused with the song of the same name by Bruce Springstein) could be a really good song for someone. 


     

Some 30 years ago, Emmylou Harris cut a version that crested at number 3 in the Country Western Charts.  

There's nothing wrong with Number 3, but I always thought that it could be a much better song.  

First of all, I wish that they had had a fiddle player for this song, preferably the lead singer.  Instead, they kind of use the electric bass player to carry the song as a rockabilly lead, which is an odd choice.  To me it just doesn't work. 

Another problem is that the "Hot Band" isn't really all that hot, at least not for this song.  To me they look like they are bored, and just playing to collect a paycheck.  They just don't look like they are having fun. They seem to be looking at the floor, and they rarely smile or show any emotion at all.  I think if I were playing with Emmylou Harris I would go absolutely nuts (in fact, after 30 years Emmylou is still a babe, and yes I am ready to quit my day job and tour with her at any time!), but you just don't see any reaction from this band despite their obvious talent.

That said, it is a great song with a fantastic melody, and interesting lyrics that  tell the story of an untamed "bad girl." This is pretty much announced in the second line "No man is master to me, I ain't that kind."  Yikes! 

I think I know someone from the Morgantown musical scene who could really take this song to the next level.   Not that I am any kind of expert, but I think it could be a hit.

Born to Run

Well I never did crawl and I never did toe that line
No man is a master to me I ain't that kind
I just put on my traveling shoes
If you wanna win you just can't lose 
the time
Or stay behind
Well I was born to run
To get ahead of the rest
And all that I wanted was to be the best
Just to feel free and be someone
I was born to be fast I was born to run

Well I take the chances sometimes I've made mistakes
But you don't get nothing unless you take the breaks
Living as dangerous as dynamite
Sure makes you feel nervous but it makes you feel alright
Makes you feel alright
Well I was born to run
To get ahead of the rest
And all that I wanted was to be the best
Just to feel free and be someone
I was born to be fast I was born to run

Nobody's gonna make me do things their way
By the time you figure it out it's yesterday
Well it comes to he who waits I'm told
But I don't need it when I'm old and gray
Yea I want it today
Well I was born to run
To get ahead of the rest
And all that I wanted was to be the best
Just to feel free and be someone
I was born to be fast I was born to run

Thanks Randy Lerner, Welcome JH3, Jimmy Haslam III.

Randy Lerner is said to be selling the Cleveland Browns to  Jimmy Haslam III. Is this a betrayal, selling the team to an outsider, particularly one that was involved in the ownership group for the Pittsburgh Steelers?

No I don't think it should be viewed this way.  Randy's dad was the guy behind the effort to restart the franchise and Randy continued that tradition.  Clevelanders should be grateful to the Lerner family for that reason.  However, it may be that Randy has been hurt by economics, not to mention a painful divorce, such that estimates of his fortune have shrunk from $1.5 billion in the 2006-2009 time frame, to around $1.0 billion in 2011.  This can't be good.  

Now we can understand the weird off-seasons of 2011 and 2012.  Namely, the Browns signed zero high profile free agents.  I've been shooting emails back and forth with some of my fellow Cleveland Browns fans, and I have to admire the support that some of them have for the team.  Some believe that the reason for the Browns signing zero free agents is because the roster is so packed with talent that there was no room for a veteran wide receiver or lineman.  What a laugh!

Rather, the main concern in the offseason for the Browns was to get rid of players like Colt McCoy (who isn't gone yet, but soon will be as the Browns have no stomach for "quarterback controversy"), Eric Steinbach, Peyton Hillis and Tony Pashos. 

Moreover, in this year's NFL draft the Browns followed the classic recipe for failure by trading multiple picks in order to draft marquee position players in Trent Richardson and Brandon Weeden.  The Weeden pick is the greatest mystery, as the Browns are getting a 29 year old guy with a background in minor league baseball.  Weeden never got out of A-ball.  But Weeden is thought to be ready to play immediately (or put it this way, he isn't going to get much better in the future because of his age, so you might as well play him now. Plus having an unrepaired torn labrum in his shoulder is usually not a good sign for longevity).  The Browns also managed to blow 3 additional draft picks so that they could move up one spot in Round 1 and draft Trent Richardson.  Richardson will probably gain 1000 yards next year, but he would need to gain 2000 in order to be worth all those picks.  They also gave away a number two pick in 2013 in order to obtain the services of pot smoking wideout Josh Gordon in the NFL Supplemental Draft.  This is a substantial risk for a fellow whose career might go up in smoke, and again leads to the conclusion that the Browns are trying to generate some excitement in 2012 at the expense of 2013 and beyond.  Now that the team has been sold, hopefully these foolish moves will stop. 

     But while we might question the football sense of this attrocious use of the NFL draft, in terms of positioning the team for sale, it makes sense to add a few glamour boys on offense, and it also makes sense to decrease the long term obligations of the team by not signing any major free agents.  That way, Jimmy Haslam can come in and make a big splash on the free agent market immediately (that is, in the 2013 off season).  Even if the Browns flop in 2012, and they have an excellent chance of doing so, Haslam will be granted a bye by the fans and the media and will get the chance to call his own shots.  It would be interesting to see what they might do with some financial backing, but most observers figure both Holmgren and Heckert will be out the door.  They may be the fall guys for doing what had to be done to get the team ready to sell, but under the circumstances I can appreciate what they did. The Browns will miss those three extra draft picks this year and they will also wish that they had kept that number two pick in 2013. 

 

Randy Lerner was a good owner, and as I see it he is selling the team because he is not able to continue being a great owner. 

 

Welcome, Jimmy Haslam III.  May we call you JH3?  Hopefully JH3 will allow the team to acquire a few free agents next year and compete for real by about 2014.  

Explorer I, Einstein and the Theory of Crustal Displacement

   There is  fringe theory in earth science by Charles Hapgood, called the "Crustal Displacement Theory."  His idea, put forward in the 1950s, was that the earth's crust might get extra heavy near the poles due to the buildup of ice caps, and that this might cause the earth's axis to shift or rotate, kind of like an orange peel could slide around the inside of the orange.  This is postulated to be the event that ended the Ice Ages around 10,000 BC or so. 

   Support for this occurs because some ancient maps show a land mass corresponding to Antarctica, with rivers that supposedly could not exist if it were glaciated.  Also it helps to explain flood myths in the Bibile and elsewhere. 

   This idea may sound pretty crazy, and perhaps at the end of the day it is.  But Albert Einstein wrote the introduction to Hapgood's book.  So if it is crazy, at least Hapgood is in some rather good company.  For that reason, several fringe archeologists have been interested in Hapgood's theory,  and wondered if it is possible that Antarctica might have been the source of the Atlantis myths.  If so, it would have been  free of ice in the ancient time, until put into a deep freeze with some polar shift.  Popular author Graham Hancock has discussed this theory in some of his writings (and in fact, if any of my readers know Graham, I hope you'll attract his attention to this blog.  

      The Crustal Displacement theory begs the question of why Antarctica can be covered in ice that is million of years old if it only froze over 11,500 years ago, and I guess that is as good a reason as any to not believe it. 

    More than that however, for some time I've been aware that the math controlling Crustal Displacement idea bears a lot of similarity to the real problem of spin stabilization, which was worked out for satellites in the late 1950's.  Oddly, the math for this was well known by the 19th century if not earlier, but our best and brightest in the space program didn't understand it when they designed the Explorer I satellite shown below.

    Briefly, they wanted the satellite to be cigar shaped to fit on the rocket, but in earth orbit they wanted to stabilize it by letting it rotate like a spinning top.  But once they launched the satellite, it didn't rotate like they wanted it to, and within hours it was in a flat spin. 

    Why didn't Explorer I stabilize properly?  Well the mathematicians went back and reviewed what they were doing.  It's sort of like the kid's trick, of spinning an egg like a top.  If you have a hard boiled egg, it behaves like a rigid body, and you can stabilize it by spinning it on the pointy end.  But an uncooked egg cannot be spun this way, not at all.  It winds up lying on its "side" which is the most stable configuration  (i.e., it can not fall over once it is lying on its side.  The mathematicians had treated Explorer I as if it were a perfectly rigid body, suitable to be stabilized around its "minor axis" or the centerline as it sat on the launch pad

  Every real object has an axis that it "likes" the most, including both Explorer I and the Earth.  The salient point is that it wasn't a passing asteroid or some other event  that caused Explorer I to change its orientation.  It just did it by itself.  

   Similarly, you could imagine situations in which the earth might get "top heavy,"  such that it is no longer the most stable axis of rotation (mathematically, the earth earth would be rotating around a minor axis of rotation rather than the major axis).  In such a case, the earth's axis would continue to be inclined at 23.4 degrees.  But the north pole would be whatever point results in the most stable rotation.  No external force needs to be applied to the earth to get it to rotate in this way.  By the same token the fact that the earth's oceans bulge at the equator does not have anything to do with the stability of the earth's poles.   What matters is the stability of the solid portion only (in other words, if you could magically remove the oceans, the stable axis is the one that stabilizes the solid crust.  The liquid ocean, molten magma  and the molten outer core of the earth  do NOT determine the most stable axis of the earth's rotation.

     Hapgood imagined that this might happen if the ice cap got very thick.  But, jeepers Hapgood, the earth is 12,756 km, and the ice cap is only a few kilomaters at most.  
    What matters most is the configuration of the solid portion of the rotating body, not the liquid portion.  So perhaps if the boundary between the earth's crust and liquid interior were to change, the earth might realign itself, as shown below.

Figure 1.  The earth is sometimes descriged as a "bumpy sphere," with most of the land masses in the northern hemisphere, although the north pole is underwater.  

 

Figure 2.  Conceivably, the earth's rotation could become unstable if the solid crust and mantle region become thicker at the poles and/or thinner near the equator.  In this case the solid portion of the earth would simply reorient itself by shifting by up to 90 degrees.  The earth's axis would continue to be inclined at 23.4 degrees.  Note the position of the pyramid shown as a reference.  


This is referred to as the "polhode" (pole wander) process, and as mentioned above, the math for this was accomplished in the 19th century.  People didn't really understand it very well until the 20th century when Explorer I was used as an object lesson. So here are the salient points as the apply to "crustal displacement."


1.  Yes it is possible for the earth to become "top heavy."  However, this is not likely to happen due to ice cap formation unless the ice caps were to become many, many miles thick.  A much more likely scenario would be for changes in the boundary between the solid crust and the liquid interior to be the precipitating event.  


2  Hapgood's idea was that some cataclysmic event would caused Antarctica to move from some temperature location to the south pole.  However, Antarctica is not Atlantis.  It could not have shifted in a major way because we know darn well by now that the ice has been there for millions of years.  


3.  Although there are a few maps that show rivers in Antarctica, this is not proof of anything other than, at best, ice melts in the summertime. If Antarctica were truly located at a temperature location in the recent past, this should be evidenced in the physical ice record.  I'd be much more impressed if there was a ye olde map with a different north and south pole.  But even then we have to trust the physical record first and foremost.  


4.  Records such as this do exist, but they are millions of years old, not thousands of years old. 


5.  The stable principal axis of rotation depends upon the moment of inertia of the solid crust  only.  The shape of the ocean, and in particular the bulge at the equator doesn't matter for this problem, as it is just following the tendency of gravity, modified by centrifugal force from the earth's rotation.    
 
6.   The earth's axis of rotation would not change if the earth reoriented itself as I have described, and would continue at 23.4 degrees.  But there would be a new north and south pole.  


So while Hapgood's interpretation is way off on how this might occur, the fact of the matter is that is possibe for the earth to reorient itself, possibly due to a change in the interfacial boundary between the solid crust and the liquidlike interior.  We can be pretty sure that that did not happen recently because of the historic stability of Antarctia ice.  We can be sure that it was not not not temperate anytime recently.  


In the distant past, however, it may make sense to see if the earth might have shifted to relocate the poles, and possibly  resultied in huge climate changes.  If this happened however, there would be major changes in the geologic ice record and other physical records.    

I don't know enough about contemporary earth science to know if anyone has articulated this type of model formally in a peer reviewed publication. If they have, and I haven't properly credited it, I apologize. But it might be that this idea is original with me.   So if someone out there thinks that this should be developed in a more formal article, I would be happy to contribute to that.